Imperialism and NATO

In 1945, as the Second World War was ending, sovereignty in the capitalist world was also shifting from the United Kingdom to the United States. During the famous Bretton Woods meetings, which took place before the war had fully concluded, political-administrative and financial organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank were being established.

A short time later, on April 4, 1949, NATO was founded under the leadership of the United States with the participation of eleven countries as a military alliance against the Communists.

As a military alliance, NATO was justified in the participating countries by the rationale of saving on defense expenditures. The prevailing view was that using the savings from defense spending for economic utility would be advantageous for every country. However, due to the dominance of the United States within the organization, NATO has, over time, moved away from being a democratic organization despite the validity of this argument, due to the responsibilities it imposes on countries from different perspectives.

Indeed, NATO, which was established as a defense system in a world dominated by the Cold War, has appeared in the context of strong-weak relations as a kind of imperialist tool, just as it has been since its inception, and especially in today's single-system, multipolar world.

For example, as seen in the Korean War in the 1950s, our being directed toward irrelevant areas for ideological purposes is among the negative examples of NATO, and even gives the appearance of dependency in the context of the imposition of conditions for joining a defense organization. Military dependency also brought political dependency to the agenda by forming the superstructure of national thought. As seen in today's Middle East war, NATO functions as a factor that makes it difficult for our country to pursue an independent and neutral policy in line with its own interests.

The words imperialism and NATO point to the same political goal from different angles. Namely, when imperialism is viewed as the activity of a certain center or centers to expand their areas of dominance to peripheral areas for economic or political purposes, NATO also functions as a kind of imperialist connection, as an implicit relationship of dominance created through various tools such as economic, political, or military means.

Especially in today's conditions, where the Soviet Union's role in balancing the Western world has disappeared, NATO has turned into a tool for its de facto leader, the United States, to establish implicit dominance over peripheral countries. As it has been since its inception, with its current image and function, NATO is, in parallel with economic imperialism, more than just a political-military organization; it is a form of political pressure and imperialist structure. Countries included in NATO, both as a requirement of the military alliance and as its ideological structure, are positioned alongside and as defenders of capitalism against communism. Indeed, just as left-wing movements in Turkey have been against NATO, NATO has also played a major role in the suppression of left-wing movements in Turkey. With this state and its ideological suppression, NATO acts as a system guardian in the truest sense, functioning as an effective external intervention against countries' free behavior, organization, and choice of system, as well as in the organic transformation and structuring of systems.

In today's conditions, where the Middle East War is increasingly gaining momentum, the pressure of NATO on Turkey, which should remain neutral in line with its own interests, has evolved into a position of de facto intervention, far beyond being merely organizational solidarity. It would not be wrong to view the naval base command that NATO established at the exit of the Istanbul Strait as if violating the Montreux Convention, and the military system at the corps level that is on the agenda to be deployed in the southeastern border region, as an attempt—a threat—against Turkey's prevention of US bases that could be used in response to attacks on Iran. In today's conditions, where the Middle East is being torn apart, while Turkey should remain neutral, the lack of a national reaction to the two strategic-political initiatives carried out by NATO in our country creates the impression that Turkey, whose decision-making power is somehow obstructed, is being dragged into the conflict zone.

When considering the Kurdish groups that have become vacant in Syria and Iraq and the subcontracted vagrant groups in the region, the duties and authorities of the famous "Greater Middle East Project" and the co-presidency office tasked with the project must be made transparent and carefully reviewed. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who signed the declaration accusing Iran on behalf of Turkey on behalf of the Arab sheikhdoms in the region, has an obligation to explain to the Turkish people as well as the Iranian people the threats and dangers that this behavior could unfairly and unnecessarily impose on our country.

In addition to these, it is hoped that the US and Israeli aggression will be held accountable at the NATO meeting decided to be held in Ankara in July. The calculations of the US, which is at the stage of realizing that it is bogged down in the Middle East war with its reckless aggression, and in this context, the extraordinary effects of NATO's influence on Turkey under the one-man regime, strike fear into us. In this context, what the word "Greater" in the "Greater Middle East Project" means, and what kind of conceptions this meaning contains regarding the position that amounts to the occupation of our country by foreign elements and, in this context, our indivisible integrity and borders, should be thoroughly thought through and discussed in broad social and political circles. While reckless, borderless aggression in the Middle East threatens our country, it is expected that NATO, which should be a kind of deterrent organization, will maintain this image. It is expected and hoped that Turkey will not be bogged down in the Middle East quagmire under NATO's command, but on the contrary, that NATO will take measures to put an end to the banditry into which the Middle East has been cast.